The Bill Simmons Thread

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,542
South Boston
I'm so not a lawyer, but I've read a lot of SoSH, and I swear I've read multiple times that California isn't a no compete state and that such clauses are illegal?
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,429
teddykgb said:
Yeah I guess I don't understand how a non compete is remotely relevant when his contract is up and they've announced non renewal
Most NC's restrict working for a competitor for a certain time period after employment regardless how your employment concluded.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
This is classic SoSH.
 
Arguing about non-complete causes when California has all but invalidated them.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
SaveBooFerriss said:
Look I am not going to argue about this anymore because you don't have a single fact to support your position. I am not going to blindly assumes contract provisions that do not make sense.
 
Do you disagree that that, the day after Simmons' ESPN contract expires, he will be free to work for any other employer, whether it is Fox, TNT, etc.?  
 
Unless you disagree, it means there is no NC agreement or it is a completely irrelevant and unenforceable provision. I am not going to assume that ESPN and Simmons negotiated irrelevant and unenforceable provisions in the agreement.    
Holy good god you're a moron.

The only claim I have made is that Simmons is negotiating the terms of his departure right now. That will include whether there will be any sort of non compete in place and (more importantly) whether he'll be subject to a non solicitation agreement.

There is nothing controversial about this. These are standard provisions placed in the contracts of key employees. To play the "YOU HAVENT READ SIMMONS CONTRACT!" card is ridiculous.

I agree that a straight up NC clause is essentially unenforceable in California, but you can still insert roadblocks in a severance agreement. For example, If Simmons gets an equity buy out that can (and likely will) complicate things regardless of enforceability of the NC provision. (Meaning, they may not be able to stop him from going to a competitor but Simmons loses the equity buy out if he does. This sort of provision cost Frank Deford millions after he retired from Sports Illustrated and went to work for The National when it started up.)

The non solicitation agreement is the bigger obstacle if he goes to a competitive organization and I will be shocked if ESPN gives on that.

Again, none of this is even remotely controversial, but carry on.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
And to the larger point you are making, corporations insert unenforceable provisions into contracts all the time. It strikes me as ridiculously naive to think of the law as some sort of force field that prevents companies from striking unenforceable agreements.

This is because for most employees, the threat of litigation is enough to achieve the objective. For someone like Simmons, they have to insert carefully crafted provisions into the severance agreement because litigation is not a deterrent.  And as MarcSullivaFan points out below, Simmons employment contract and severance agreement will likely specify that the agreement is controlled under the laws of a state other than California.  Again, this may not be enforceable, but it's a roadblock.

This doesn't mean that any of the provisions will stop Simmons from jumping. (He's likely to do so in any case, unless the financial incentives for taking a vacation are massive.) But I can tell you to a 100% certainty that ESPN will try to insert those provisions in any case.
 

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,143
ernieshore said:
Weak effort by Miller. He dismisses ESPN claims that BS's comments about Goodell on Patrick's show were not relevant to the decision, ignoring that since returning from suspension Simmons has said harsher things about Goodell repeatedly on ESPN platforms. If it were about the content of the remarks he would have been shutdown months ago.

Miller also goes after the ESPN spin that BS was not much of a revenue generator, a claim I find easy to believe. Miller suggests that 30 For 30 must be profitable, which is likely true but BS's ongoing participation is irrelevant to the profitability of the franchise. Meanwhile the monthly revenue generated by Simmons digital presence is likely only equal to that generated by a few hours of ESPN TV programming on any given day.

As Jack Donaghy once said to Liz Lemon on 30 Rock, "I've noticed that your show generates 2% of our revenue yet takes up 50% of my time." To me it's very easy to believe that this is where Skipper ultimately ended up with Simmons, that he just wasn't worth the headache anymore because he's not nearly as valuable to the empire as his fans think he is.
 

Alcohol&Overcalls

Member
SoSH Member
MarcSullivaFan said:
Most NC and NS agreements contain choice of law and forum selection clauses. So, it's not necessarily the case that ESPN would be limited to enforcing a NC against BS in the California courts.
 
In general, though, the CA stance on non-competes operates independently of the COL clause (otherwise it would never be operable, you'd just contractually select Delaware [assuming DE incorporation] every time) - while the COL would handle substantive issues, elements of capacity or policy/rights can still be handled outside the clause, under any of the common COL regimes (2d Restatement, Interest Analysis, Comparative Impairment, etc. - and CA is kind of a hybrid of the last two IIRC).
 
Further, while Average Reds is right about non-enforceable provisions being in contracts all the time, this wasn't a boilerplate contract - every line was dickered most likely. There's a very good chance issues like COL/FS were highly contentious and negotiated at length. The parties will know their rights when planning the joint exit strategy.
 

SLC Sox

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
Jul 16, 2005
526
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
Most NC's restrict working for a competitor for a certain time period after employment regardless how your employment concluded.
 
I think the point is that most NC clauses do not last beyond the term of the contract, they are in place for if the person tries to leave early.  So even if in the unlikely event Simmons has a NC that is enforceable wherever he ends up, it probably only lasts until September or whenever the contract is up.  But Average Reds is right that they are probably negotiating out of it now, particularly in light of how ESPN has handled the situation.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,429
jschip1 said:
 
I think the point is that most NC clauses do not last beyond the term of the contract, they are in place for if the person tries to leave early.  So even if in the unlikely event Simmons has a NC that is enforceable wherever he ends up, it probably only lasts until September or whenever the contract is up.  But Average Reds is right that they are probably negotiating out of it now, particularly in light of how ESPN has handled the situation.
 
No it isn't. I've signed NC's that stipulate I can't work for a competitor within 12 months from leaving/dismissal of the company.
 


The use of such clauses is premised on the possibility that upon their termination or resignation, an employee might begin working for a competitor or starting a business, and gain competitive advantage by exploiting confidential information about their former employer's operations or trade secrets, or sensitive information such as customer/client lists, business practices, upcoming products, and marketing plans.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
If he has clauses in the deal the one that is much more likely to cause him issues is a non-solicitation  clause, which if there is one would prevent him from recruiting Grantland writers/editors or people working on 30 for  30. I'd guess there isn't much of one based on Jim Miller talking about Grantland staff who are thinking about following him, Miller tends to have good insight into what goes on at ESPN and he (and others) probably would have mentioned by now if ESPN got a non-solicitation.
As for a non-compete, they are usually only enforceable in CA against equity holders, and most places they are only enforceable so far as needed to protect the previous employer and their business secrets. Not sure how ESPN is going to argue that Simmons should be prevented from going to a competitor under that standard.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
I'm thinking Bill is going to have the summer off. He's also at a tipping point to move back to Boston. I'm guessing he'll stay in LA and get one more ESPN column or podcast to say thank you and that'll be that.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
Well there it is. As expected. Not even a goodbye column seems a bit harshly personal. ESPN handled all of this pretty poorly.
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
36,692
where the darn libs live
Wow.
 
I mean, we all know we'll get a goodbye from him via Twitter or IG or something, but yikes.  That's pretty shitty of ESPN, even if you think Simmons has been a PITA the last few years.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
CaptainLaddie said:
Wow.
 
I mean, we all know we'll get a goodbye from him via Twitter or IG or something, but yikes.  That's pretty shitty of ESPN, even if you think Simmons has been a PITA the last few years.
Agreed. Skipper got way to caught up in things that only people at the Bristol HQ care about. Publicly ESPN looks Goodell-ishly heavy handed and prickish here. Even if Bill acted out, there was still every opportunity to take the high road. That didn't happen.
 

Stevie1der

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 6, 2009
1,073
Morrisville, NC
Reluctantly wandering into the legal/business end of the pool again, does ESPN have any cause or negotiating leverage to prevent Simmons from coming out guns blazing airing all of the company's dirty laundry first chance he gets at his new gig?
 

TheDeuce222

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
380
Stevie1der said:
Reluctantly wandering into the legal/business end of the pool again, does ESPN have any cause or negotiating leverage to prevent Simmons from coming out guns blazing airing all of the company's dirty laundry first chance he gets at his new gig?
 
One would surely think they made him sign a non-disparagement/confidentiality agreement to prevent him from airing certain things, in exchange for paying him out the remainder of his contract even though he doesn't have to work for the next few months.  Very interested to see if he revives his old blog or something in the interim if he's not able to do anything professionally for the time being.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
701
TheDeuce222 said:
 
One would surely think they made him sign a non-disparagement/confidentiality agreement to prevent him from airing certain things, in exchange for paying him out the remainder of his contract even though he doesn't have to work for the next few months.  Very interested to see if he revives his old blog or something in the interim if he's not able to do anything professionally for the time being.
Do we know that they are paying the remainder of this contract?
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
16,123
<null>
ifmanis5 said:
His face is still on the front page. Wonder how long that will last.
 
Also the title of the website: Sports and Pop Culture from Bill Simmons and our rotating cast of writers
 

Merkle's Boner

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2011
3,760
I was enjoying the Summer Movie Preview videos with Chris Connelly and Wesley Morris. They've been releasing one segment each day. It sounds like there won't be anymore coming.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Stevie1der said:
Reluctantly wandering into the legal/business end of the pool again, does ESPN have any cause or negotiating leverage to prevent Simmons from coming out guns blazing airing all of the company's dirty laundry first chance he gets at his new gig?
TheDeuce222 said:
 
One would surely think they made him sign a non-disparagement/confidentiality agreement to prevent him from airing certain things, in exchange for paying him out the remainder of his contract even though he doesn't have to work for the next few months.  Very interested to see if he revives his old blog or something in the interim if he's not able to do anything professionally for the time being.
 
Simmons will not unilaterally sign the non-disparagement agreement, because this provides significant value to ESPN.  (ESPN will offer to make it a reciprocal agreement, but the value to ESPN is higher, so that won't do the trick.) My guess is that he will use this as a means of achieving complete/near-complete freedom.
 
"You want me to sign a non-disparagement agreement after shitting all over me in public?  Fine, but I can go wherever I want and take whoever I want with me."  That's probably what they are talking about right now.
 
Swedgin said:
Do we know that they are paying the remainder of this contract?
 
Why would they not be obligated to pay him for the reminder of his contract?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Merkle's Boner said:
I was enjoying the Summer Movie Preview videos with Chris Connelly and Wesley Morris. They've been releasing one segment each day. It sounds like there won't be anymore coming.
 

It does? They can still put them out.
 

gtg807y

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 31, 2006
3,162
Atlanta, GA
Merkle's Boner said:
I was enjoying the Summer Movie Preview videos with Chris Connelly and Wesley Morris. They've been releasing one segment each day. It sounds like there won't be anymore coming.
 
Didn't that same thing happen to their NBA preview videos in the fall?  They released a few, Simmons was suspended, and that was never seen again.  
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
gtg807y said:
 
Didn't that same thing happen to their NBA preview videos in the fall?  They released a few, Simmons was suspended, and that was never seen again.  
ESPN released everything that they had finished. They simply stopped production when the suspension kicked in. After it was over it was basically too late, the season was starting.
Not sure what Bill has in the can for ESPN but I'm guessing it will not be released. Grantland and 30 for 30 will continue but not with Bill.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
Average Reds said:
 
Simmons will not unilaterally sign the non-disparagement agreement, because this provides significant value to ESPN.  (ESPN will offer to make it a reciprocal agreement, but the value to ESPN is higher, so that won't do the trick.) My guess is that he will use this as a means of achieving complete/near-complete freedom.
 
"You want me to sign a non-disparagement agreement after shitting all over me in public?  Fine, but I can go wherever I want and take whoever I want with me."  That's probably what they are talking about right now.
 
It's worth noting that his silence since the Skipper announcement stands alone as an example of Simmons keeping his trap shut for his own damn good.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
JimBoSox9 said:
 
It's worth noting that his silence since the Skipper announcement stands alone as an example of Simmons keeping his trap shut for his own damn good.
 
A moment of rare discipline for Simmons.
 
But I suspect he's been planning for this day for some time.  So while the timing wasn't (may not have been?) of his choosing, the plan of action is.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
 
 
Wanted to tell you that it looks like I am done being involved with Grantland. Can’t say much here for obvious reasons, at least for now—I know you understand. In the short-term—don’t let this bullshit affect you. Just keep doing what you’re doing. It’s a job. We tried to make it feel like it was more than a job these last four years, but right now, it’s still a job and Grantland is still being consumed and judged by the general public (with unusually high standards, too). So keep the quality of your work as high as it’s always been. Work situations are rarely going to be prefect and you can’t allow it to affect what you’re doing. The best way to “respond” right now is to keep putting out a great site. If you didn’t know, April was our best month—we passed 10 million uniques without chasing traffic and without any leading-the-site promotion whatsoever from ESPN.com (just one Mets piece for like 90 minutes, that’s it). We built an audience because of quality and quality only. You guys should feel good about that.
http://deadspin.com/bill-simmonss-goodbye-email-i-am-done-being-involved-1704773063?rev=1431719482111&utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow#
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,494
Have to give credit for Simmons for taking the high road and going out like a professional with his team.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
Mooch said:
Have to give credit for Simmons for taking the high road and going out like a professional with his team.
 
Yeah, it really was the prefect response.
 

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
Would it have been too much for ESPN to let him get a goodbye to the readers column on Grantland, the site he founded? I'm asking that sincerely. I know they effectively fired him, but it just seems crazy to me that they're just going to pretend he never existed.

As for the email to the staff, in the five years Grantland's been around, no one's leaked to Deadspin that he's a bad or ineffective boss (see Whitlock, Jason). His overlords at ESPN and some of the other Bristol talent may have hated his guts, but the Grantland staff didn't.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
JBill said:
Would it have been too much for ESPN to let him get a goodbye to the readers column on Grantland, the site he founded? I'm asking that sincerely. I know they effectively fired him, but it just seems crazy to me that they're just going to pretend he never existed.
It is dumb and they look dumb for doing it the way they did it- firing on Twitter and yanking his press card in a public way. Skipper let this get too personal and he looks like Goodell in the process.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
JBill said:
Would it have been too much for ESPN to let him get a goodbye to the readers column on Grantland, the site he founded? I'm asking that sincerely. I know they effectively fired him, but it just seems crazy to me that they're just going to pretend he never existed.

As for the email to the staff, in the five years Grantland's been around, no one's leaked to Deadspin that he's a bad or ineffective boss (see Whitlock, Jason). His overlords at ESPN and some of the other Bristol talent may have hated his guts, but the Grantland staff didn't.
I know Jay Caspian Kang, one of the few early Grantland writers to leave tweeted about how he was a great boss and everyone loved having him as a boss.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
I wonder if Skipper will change his mind and allow Bill a goodbye column?
I'm also wondering if I stay subscribed to the BS Report podcast that ESPN will just shove Colin Cowherd down that tube or something.
 

Number45forever

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2003
1,970
Vermont
Yup, same here.  Only been a week but I miss the podcasts.  I don't even really like the NBA but his pods are entertaining.  If he isn't back in action by NFL season, I'm going to really miss the Cousin Sal pods.
 
What I didn't miss though was the inevitable Bill's Dad pod about the Wells Report.
 

deanx0

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2004
2,506
Orlando, FL
ifmanis5 said:
Have to admit I'm missing the podcasts. Would love to hear his take on the Clippers blowing it.
 
Zach Lowe did an "emergency Monday podcast" of the Lowe Post with Ramona Shelburne to cover this very topic, even acknowledging the Monday NBA podcast hole that exists. It's not the same as Simmons, but Lowe is a great voice about the NBA, although Jeff Van Gundy did recently run roughshod over him about how nothing is ever a coach's fault when things go wrong.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
deanx0 said:
 
Zach Lowe did an "emergency Monday podcast" of the Lowe Post with Ramona Shelburne to cover this very topic, even acknowledging the Monday NBA podcast hole that exists. It's not the same as Simmons, but Lowe is a great voice about the NBA, although Jeff Van Gundy did recently run roughshod over him about how nothing is ever a coach's fault when things go wrong.
JVG protects coaches like Breen protects refs and like Bill's dad produces horrible content.
 

Scoops Bolling

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2007
5,874
deanx0 said:
 
Zach Lowe did an "emergency Monday podcast" of the Lowe Post with Ramona Shelburne to cover this very topic, even acknowledging the Monday NBA podcast hole that exists. It's not the same as Simmons, but Lowe is a great voice about the NBA, although Jeff Van Gundy did recently run roughshod over him about how nothing is ever a coach's fault when things go wrong.
Yeah, that JVG podcast was tough listening for a guy who is usually pretty good. Basically waved away improvements from teams like the Warriors and Hawks under "well, maybe they would have improved anyway" bizarro logic. Anytime you resort to "these guys have families!" as a reason they shouldn't be fired, just...woof.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,464
Don Buddin's GS said:
Simmons' image isn't totally removed from ESPN just yet--last night's E:60 replay of the 30 for 30 on "The Bad Boys" had BS talking to Jalen about the Pistons/Celtics battles.
They aren't removing him. They just aren't going to have any new content from him. They are basically treating it like his contract ended with Skipper's announcement.
 

leetinsley38

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
764
SF Bay Area
Cellar-Door said:
They aren't removing him. They just aren't going to have any new content from him. They are basically treating it like his contract ended with Skipper's announcement.
That content still has a lot of long term SEO value.  No way they pull that down or just give it back to Bill to go start his own site. Bill loves referencing/linking back to old columns too (if you remember from my Playoff Gambling Manifesto in 2011, rule 5, etc.). Could even be a point of leverage in the negotiations.